I don't get why gravity is simultaneously called a force and not a force. On one hand, it is one of the four "fundamental forces" of nature and we are still seeking the ever-elusive graviton, which may not even exist. On the other hand, we say gravity is not a force at all, and this attraction is simply due to the geodesic that we follow in curved space-time. Gravity is equivalent to centrifigal force - just as turning in a vehicle "forces" you to the outside of the vehicle, being close to a large body like Earth causes you to move by staying still, so to speak - not a force at all!

Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.

At 1/25/2014 8:39:13 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:I don't get why gravity is simultaneously called a force and not a force. On one hand, it is one of the four "fundamental forces" of nature and we are still seeking the ever-elusive graviton, which may not even exist. On the other hand, we say gravity is not a force at all, and this attraction is simply due to the geodesic that we follow in curved space-time. Gravity is equivalent to centrifigal force - just as turning in a vehicle "forces" you to the outside of the vehicle, being close to a large body like Earth causes you to move by staying still, so to speak - not a force at all!

Because it has qualities of both, obviously, as you indicated. The reason why it may be a simple space-time curvature is because its influenced by mass. However, as you indicated, it can also be created artificially through centrifugal force. On the other hand, you seem to be under the assumption that a large body must be moving to generate gravity. That is not the case. Though negligible, even the famous pyramids generate their own measurable gravity.

The graviton is still only theoretical, but is still accepted as a viable theory, because all forms of energy need a "carrier" particle, and for gravity, that particle is either one that already exists, or the "graviton." Yet, there has been no proof of an actual graviton save for the logic that led to their hypothesis in the first place.

At 1/25/2014 8:39:13 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:I don't get why gravity is simultaneously called a force and not a force. On one hand, it is one of the four "fundamental forces" of nature and we are still seeking the ever-elusive graviton, which may not even exist. On the other hand, we say gravity is not a force at all, and this attraction is simply due to the geodesic that we follow in curved space-time. Gravity is equivalent to centrifigal force - just as turning in a vehicle "forces" you to the outside of the vehicle, being close to a large body like Earth causes you to move by staying still, so to speak - not a force at all!

Because it has qualities of both, obviously, as you indicated. The reason why it may be a simple space-time curvature is because its influenced by mass. However, as you indicated, it can also be created artificially through centrifugal force.

My point about centrifugal force, is that it is not a force at all. If you are standing on a skateboard, and I rip the skateboard out from under you, there is not force acting on you that tossed you off it - even though, from the skateboard's perspective, you suddenly were grabbed by a force and thrown off.

On the other hand, you seem to be under the assumption that a large body must be moving to generate gravity. That is not the case. Though negligible, even the famous pyramids generate their own measurable gravity.

I am under no such assumption.

The graviton is still only theoretical, but is still accepted as a viable theory, because all forms of energy need a "carrier" particle, and for gravity, that particle is either one that already exists, or the "graviton." Yet, there has been no proof of an actual graviton save for the logic that led to their hypothesis in the first place.

Again, if gravity is simply an illusion (as centrifugal force is) then why does it need a force-carrying particle? And isn't this a good explanation for why the graviton is so elusive? It doesn't exist! I am no physicist though, I can only parrot what I hear and put it together.

Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.

At 1/25/2014 8:39:13 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:I don't get why gravity is simultaneously called a force and not a force. On one hand, it is one of the four "fundamental forces" of nature and we are still seeking the ever-elusive graviton, which may not even exist. On the other hand, we say gravity is not a force at all, and this attraction is simply due to the geodesic that we follow in curved space-time. Gravity is equivalent to centrifigal force - just as turning in a vehicle "forces" you to the outside of the vehicle, being close to a large body like Earth causes you to move by staying still, so to speak - not a force at all!

Gravity is a "fictitious force", which means that the force observed arises from being in a non-inertial frame of reference (or, to think of it another way, a region of space-time that isn't all flat and uniform). Though there is no "force" in the Newtonian sense, the bending of space-time is a very real phenomenon, so we still call it a "force" in the sense of the "fundamental forces" for simplicity's sake. It's all about the word "force" having two slightly different meanings.

At 1/25/2014 8:39:13 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:I don't get why gravity is simultaneously called a force and not a force. On one hand, it is one of the four "fundamental forces" of nature and we are still seeking the ever-elusive graviton, which may not even exist. On the other hand, we say gravity is not a force at all, and this attraction is simply due to the geodesic that we follow in curved space-time. Gravity is equivalent to centrifigal force - just as turning in a vehicle "forces" you to the outside of the vehicle, being close to a large body like Earth causes you to move by staying still, so to speak - not a force at all!

Gravity is a "fictitious force", which means that the force observed arises from being in a non-inertial frame of reference (or, to think of it another way, a region of space-time that isn't all flat and uniform). Though there is no "force" in the Newtonian sense, the bending of space-time is a very real phenomenon, so we still call it a "force" in the sense of the "fundamental forces" for simplicity's sake. It's all about the word "force" having two slightly different meanings.

Very good - so why are we still searching out the graviton then?

Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.

At 1/25/2014 8:39:13 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:I don't get why gravity is simultaneously called a force and not a force. On one hand, it is one of the four "fundamental forces" of nature and we are still seeking the ever-elusive graviton, which may not even exist. On the other hand, we say gravity is not a force at all, and this attraction is simply due to the geodesic that we follow in curved space-time. Gravity is equivalent to centrifigal force - just as turning in a vehicle "forces" you to the outside of the vehicle, being close to a large body like Earth causes you to move by staying still, so to speak - not a force at all!

Gravity is a "fictitious force", which means that the force observed arises from being in a non-inertial frame of reference (or, to think of it another way, a region of space-time that isn't all flat and uniform). Though there is no "force" in the Newtonian sense, the bending of space-time is a very real phenomenon, so we still call it a "force" in the sense of the "fundamental forces" for simplicity's sake. It's all about the word "force" having two slightly different meanings.

Very good - so why are we still searching out the graviton then?

Because something is causing space-time to bend, isn't it? Gravitons are very much in the realm of String/M-Theory, of which I have only a basic understanding.

At 1/25/2014 8:39:13 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:I don't get why gravity is simultaneously called a force and not a force. On one hand, it is one of the four "fundamental forces" of nature and we are still seeking the ever-elusive graviton, which may not even exist. On the other hand, we say gravity is not a force at all, and this attraction is simply due to the geodesic that we follow in curved space-time. Gravity is equivalent to centrifigal force - just as turning in a vehicle "forces" you to the outside of the vehicle, being close to a large body like Earth causes you to move by staying still, so to speak - not a force at all!

Gravity is a "fictitious force", which means that the force observed arises from being in a non-inertial frame of reference (or, to think of it another way, a region of space-time that isn't all flat and uniform). Though there is no "force" in the Newtonian sense, the bending of space-time is a very real phenomenon, so we still call it a "force" in the sense of the "fundamental forces" for simplicity's sake. It's all about the word "force" having two slightly different meanings.

Very good - so why are we still searching out the graviton then?

Because something is causing space-time to bend, isn't it? Gravitons are very much in the realm of String/M-Theory, of which I have only a basic understanding.

I guess I can buy that.

Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.

At 1/25/2014 8:39:13 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:I don't get why gravity is simultaneously called a force and not a force. On one hand, it is one of the four "fundamental forces" of nature and we are still seeking the ever-elusive graviton, which may not even exist. On the other hand, we say gravity is not a force at all, and this attraction is simply due to the geodesic that we follow in curved space-time. Gravity is equivalent to centrifigal force - just as turning in a vehicle "forces" you to the outside of the vehicle, being close to a large body like Earth causes you to move by staying still, so to speak - not a force at all!

Because it has qualities of both, obviously, as you indicated. The reason why it may be a simple space-time curvature is because its influenced by mass. However, as you indicated, it can also be created artificially through centrifugal force.

My point about centrifugal force, is that it is not a force at all. If you are standing on a skateboard, and I rip the skateboard out from under you, there is not force acting on you that tossed you off it - even though, from the skateboard's perspective, you suddenly were grabbed by a force and thrown off.

On the other hand, you seem to be under the assumption that a large body must be moving to generate gravity. That is not the case. Though negligible, even the famous pyramids generate their own measurable gravity.

I am under no such assumption.

The graviton is still only theoretical, but is still accepted as a viable theory, because all forms of energy need a "carrier" particle, and for gravity, that particle is either one that already exists, or the "graviton." Yet, there has been no proof of an actual graviton save for the logic that led to their hypothesis in the first place.

Again, if gravity is simply an illusion (as centrifugal force is) then why does it need a force-carrying particle? And isn't this a good explanation for why the graviton is so elusive? It doesn't exist! I am no physicist though, I can only parrot what I hear and put it together.

If space-time were curving, then something caused it to curve. If it were mass, that's essentially another way of saying "the aggregate of all particles a body contains," which is analogous to all matter and energy it comprises. If that were the case, then the gravity of something is proportionate to its speed just as much as its mass, even in a straight line. Moreover, charging something with energy would effectively increase its gravitational pull. I don't think that's the case, though. If it's not, then there is "something" that causes space-time to curve, and that could essentially be an energy output proportionate to a given mass. That energy would require a "carrier," which would be the graviton, if it isn't some other particle we've already discovered.